Given the stiff formality of many of the messages on this topic, and the
absence of
description of who did what and why, I suspect the problem is some sort of a
split
regarding what approach (or which particular solution) should be taken in OAM
for
MPLS. And that the two factions were probably
regards,
Nurit
-Original Message-
From: ext Worley, Dale R (Dale) [mailto:dwor...@avaya.com]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 5:10 PM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); Huub van Helvoort; Brian E
Carpenter
Cc: IETF
Subject: RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
Given
- Original Message -
From: Worley, Dale R (Dale) dwor...@avaya.com
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) nurit.sprec...@nsn.com; Huubvan
Helvoort huubatw...@gmail.com; Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 4:09 PM
Given
From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) [nurit.sprec...@nsn.com]
So far We did not see any justification for two competing solutions for
OAM in MPLS-TP.
No doubt you are correct.
But I will note that this
Given the subject matter, I suspect that the issue has something to do with
net neutrality and the various parties attempting to spin on that particular
issue.
As with many of these layer 8+ issues, what is driving events is not
necessarily the actual capabilities of the technology so much as the
Worley, Dale R (Dale)
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 5:20 PM
To: Huub van Helvoort; Brian E Carpenter
Cc: IETF
Subject: RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Huub van Helvoort
On Friday October 2nd an agenda was distributed for the MEAD
team
Housley
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
On 2011-03-04 06:51, Russ Housley wrote:
Nurit:
Not to mention including the canard that the IETF unilaterally
disbanded
its group assigned to work with ITU in 2009. Others with more
detailed
knowledge can explain
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Huub van Helvoort
On Friday October 2nd an agenda was distributed for the MEAD
team for the meeting in Munich on the MEAD team list m...@ietf.org.
On Monday October 5th an email was sent to m...@ietf.org
announcing the disbanding of the MEAD team,
To: Russ Housley
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
On 2011-03-04 06:51, Russ Housley wrote:
Nurit:
Not to mention including the canard that the IETF unilaterally
disbanded
its group assigned to work with ITU in 2009. Others with more
detailed
knowledge can
Hello Dale,
On Friday October 2nd an agenda was distributed for the MEAD
team for the meeting in Munich on the MEAD team list m...@ietf.org.
On Monday October 5th an email was sent to m...@ietf.org
announcing the disbanding of the MEAD team, and that the
meeting in Munich should not be
Petch
Ross
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John E
Drake
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 10:01 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter; Russ Housley
Cc: IETF
Subject: RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
Hi,
I think we should
Hello Brian,
You wrote:
Not to mention including the canard that the IETF unilaterally disbanded
its group assigned to work with ITU in 2009. Others with more detailed
knowledge can explain exactly why this is, er, a lie.
Here are some facts:
===
I was member of the MEAD
-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext
Huub van Helvoort
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:38 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
Hello Brian,
You wrote:
Not to mention including the canard that the IETF
Nurit:
Not to mention including the canard that the IETF unilaterally disbanded
its group assigned to work with ITU in 2009. Others with more detailed
knowledge can explain exactly why this is, er, a lie.
Here are some facts:
===
I was member of the MEAD team.
A meeting
On 2011-03-04 06:51, Russ Housley wrote:
Nurit:
Not to mention including the canard that the IETF unilaterally disbanded
its group assigned to work with ITU in 2009. Others with more detailed
knowledge can explain exactly why this is, er, a lie.
Here are some facts:
===
I
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Russ Housley wrote:
It does not sound like the shutdown of the MEAD team was smooth.
However, the closure of a design team when their output is being handled
by a working group is quite normal.
From following this thread, it sounds like the wrong IETF organization
unit
I want the whole community to be aware of the comments that I made to the press
over the past few days. Last Friday, the ITU-T Study Group 15 decided to move
forward with an OAM solution that is incompatible with the work being done in
the IETF MPLS WG. This is a breach of the agreement
On Mar 2, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
I want the whole community to be aware of the comments that I made to the
press over the past few days. Last Friday, the ITU-T Study Group 15 decided
to move forward with an OAM solution that is incompatible with the work being
done in the
On 2011-03-03 05:02, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 2, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
I want the whole community to be aware of the comments that I made to the
press over the past few days. Last Friday, the ITU-T Study Group 15 decided
to move forward with an OAM solution that is
19 matches
Mail list logo
